linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <feb77bdc-512a-4f59-8a9e-1dc7751a2fa7@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 08:31:23 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
 Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] zram: Replace bit spinlocks with a spinlock_t.

On 9/6/24 8:14 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> this is follow up to the previous posting, making the lock
> unconditionally. The original problem with bit spinlock is that it
> disabled preemption and the following operations (within the atomic
> section) perform operations that may sleep on PREEMPT_RT. Mike expressed
> that he would like to keep using zram on PREEMPT_RT.

Looks good to me:

Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>

-- 
Jens Axboe